On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:57 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
[...]
That includes the amended revocation and
attribution clauses that Francesco is concerned with; we thought they
were sufficiently softened that they were not an effective prevention
of licensors exercising their freedom.
A
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:21:34 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
[...] I also believe that a large number of debian-legal
participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free
enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not
effective
On 3/11/07, Michael Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've read up and found the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses are
specifically disallowed by Debian (well GFDL with non-invariant
sections seems ok, but does that make sense for creative/audio
content?). Looking further, I could not find any
Michael Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looking further, I could not find any Debian-approved licenses for
creative (non-software) works [2], [3]. Is the Debian approach to
just use a software license like GPL or BSD for creative content?
Those licenses can apply to any software, not just
4 matches
Mail list logo